tv [untitled] July 19, 2013 7:00am-7:31am PDT
market value 2005 and 2008 are peak usage t dr for the developments. most traksdz have been in the range of 18 to $25. again, this is the prices we're able to find. based on that we're saying the co co- related tractions have occurred. looking at the composition we're focusing on demand. the t dr has created a significant supply. there's 2 had the 6 million that hadn't think used but brown there's about 3 hundred thousand
that's reported as used but the projects didn't ignored and they were not scald. so that leaves 2 hundred 3 million unused t dr out there. so there are 12 buildings that have certified t dr but haven't transferred any of the t dr. and the demand side we're seeing the current dammed is 1.6 million and that's made up of pipeline projects projects that are in the pipeline projects right now. so of this 1 point 67 million 8
hundred and 6 thousand have been acquired by pipeline projects. then the t d projects put together it looks like there's a demand for 8 hundred and 60 t drs. sow looking at into the future for t dr demand and supply oh, i should point out that the lowest price for t dr is $5.51. you can see most of them have been in the range of 18 to $25
given the program has been in existence for almost thirty years a lot of 3 may not be certified. it's interesting after the board of supervisors approved that the t dr can go beyond the borders but we don't anticipate a lot. the t zone properties that are adjacent to the downtown district that are eligible could sift 6.3 million t drs. it could be increased in the future with planning and zoning projects as eligible. we saw that with other project there were 3 thousand properties that were eligible to be certified. we see in terms of demand.
the program is limited to the 3 sdiblths located in the downtown. many of the remaining opportunity sites are in the t d c p and the marketplace. those are limited the needs of t dr. so land limitations don't create t dr potential demanded. so at this point, we're not promising a significant increase for demand for t dr. are in terms of t dr for publicly owned property. we think this could be a potential to meet the demand. the t dr that is available may not be easily assembled.
one of the most common concerned was there's a limited supply of limited t dr. we also know that of the t dr that's remaining certified they're in small blocks from 10 thousand to 25 thousand. so we think that publicly owned property can meet the demand for larger sections. and like the service center on dproef street together are certified 6.3 million. the port has proposed modifications that would allow piers 19 and 31 to certify the t d railroad. if the city were to sift million dollars it could take between 6
and 19 years to be absorbed if the marketplace. about 2 dozens of those projects like new york city and seattle and washington most of them go beyond have other areas of focus such as a affordable housing and open space speaker san francisco's program is very unique in that it allows any third party developers or investor to own t dr without it having to be connected with the ultimate your. there's seven hundred thousand or 1.6 t dr that's been transferred off the parcel but not been used. that's been noted i think as a positive in the reviews of t dr
programs. there isn't the program to go from yours to developer speaker and sifting t dr month jurisdictions track t dr through documents. in terms of pricing there's quite a few a variety. to increase the fdr in some cities you have programs that compete with t dr like other payments and in places where you have those people take the lowest cost options. in new york city due to the complainants t dr can become
expensive it's about 25 percent of land value and the prices go as high as $800 interest some t dr creates revenues through tax. new york politics the transfer taxes on t dr sales. so in terms of our recommendations for publicly owned t dr we're suggesting that t dr for city buildings be certified for eligible for t dr programs and the 10 year capital plans. we suggest that the department of real estate be allowed to transfer those t drs and the department of real estate will do this based on the tractions.
and we also suggest that the board of supervisors considered designating properties owned by port to be eligible for t dr. those 3 piers and one important thing is to set the t dr for the port properties. other remthsdz, you know, we noticed there's a need to balance you know the historic preservation goal paid through by impact fees. you know the t dr program was put in there from 6 to one to 9 to one. but above that there are impact fees charged in the plan. in terms of information that's one of the big exchanges we
heard about when he did the interviews. we recommend additional reporting on the annual usage of t dr and the market pricing and that may allow potential buyers to contact the t dr owners. and finally the t dr program be reviewed every 5 years. this was one of the first independent reviews of the program and we suggest that the rough be tied to the report that has to be done every 5 years on the downtown plan the downtown project and the next deadline is july 1 july 1st do 2015 and we think if the city were to sift the t dr
it would be great to check in on that process >> thank you, commissioners so we have questions. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i actually read the entire thing and it's an interesting concept and program. i had a couple of questions. one is this may be directed towards the department. i didn't know there was a specific one for public properties >> when the program was modified in 2003 to include the public properties in the c-3 district they set the 7.5. we actually - and, you know, >> i was wondering where you got the number from.
>> it's an estimate that's something that legislation - you know, there needs to be a discussion on that. >> i assume the pier is the piece of property. how do i determine the boundary of a peer and how - what are the multipleers >> i think they're making a difference between - >> the building maybe bigger a than the property. >> thank you forrd that. i have another question. i said that the usual part of the san francisco program that a third party can buy the t drs is there a market, a broker why would they do that >> during the course of our
interviews there's one broker who knows the area wherever you call people they have questions i call edward. i think because things have to accommodated from other properties and there is a rule for a broker. yeah. >> but i assume there's some financial incentive there as well. >> yeah. you want to discuss the financial >> of course. >> just like any real estate broker. >> so looked like, you know, there's all that t dr that's been certified and those buildings have been certified. so one hundred believes have been retained but not all of that t dr has been used.
so it might be retaining properties maybe there wasn't a user at that time, >> i guess the city or planning department can they be the broker. is there a reason that the specific t dr couldn't go into a bank and you say the city has this many to offer so the broker can go to the city and they can make a transaction. it seemed so complicated >> the city would have large secto
sectors. >> now it seems like the point of this is to make it easier for someone who wants t drs to assembly them did i get that correct. >> yes. >> even though there are only two and a half that are to the siege from two and a half owners of taser dr from the project. >> on average yeah, but there's another purpose of this we weren't ask to look at it and
that's the policy aspect. from the sale of public - >> two fifths of the community. but i noticed there are a lot of ones close to the end of the report those can be taxed >> they are not right now but they can be. >> there was a lawsuit in california and they're a form of lawsuit in the bundle of property rights but it wasn't a statewide decision so yeah. in other states they're considered property tax. and that's something that the city and county of san francisco could look into.
that's what? >> a policy issue. >> yeah. sure but that did strike me as perhaps another aspect of this that ought to be examined with some care. >> i didn't put down all the recommendations but the city could consider implementing a payment of property taxes. >> well, if it's an item of property and it has a value it strikes me everybody ought to participate in the value. >> one of the challenges in no, it's connected the seller and the buyer. you you know the connection because it's going to the user. we didn't look at what they
because the tax on but it would be a lot higher than where it's coming from. how you would value the t dr. >> i think everybody should be allowed to participate in this creation of the value. i think we ought to the city and county of san francisco should consider this as a fair source of revenue >> thank you commissioner john. >> you think my comment comes in between the two opinions in terms of getting at the policy. and this is an interesting study. i was a planner in san francisco thirty years ago when this program come into fruition so i
haven't looked at it seriously until this study it's interesting. but my question goods tow did you look at the use of economic value of t drs in recycling back into the historic preservation program with the view that the idea behind this and the definition of preservation i feel was quite circumstance subscribed at that time, and the t dr was saying we've zoned you preservation and we're to take this money and say bleeding we're going to take it and use it for another city purpose.
but i was just thinking another reconsideration of how those rights are used in 2013 and recycle it back. locking more into recircling back into the program. >> so the program has two criteria. so when it was amended to be eligible for t dr they put in the requirements that the revenue had to be used on that specific believe that the t dr was used from. in 2010 there was an amendment to acquire a plan and that was just amended in april.
so, now plans are required when your - you can certify t dr but wu you have to should how you're going to rehabilitate your building >> you can use the value of the t dr. >> yes as part of the amendments the most recent amendments the department felt there should be some invested interest in the building of where the t drs coming from. we base that provisions in the code whereas, soon as the t dr is sold from 9 property they have to enter into an agreement of how over the, you know, first
year and 5th year how they're going to maintain that building. not that all the proceeds of the sale go back into the building but a portion for the maintenance >> commissioner. >> this may have been there i may have missed it. since the program was amended to allow the adjacent property has any property used or sold t dr >> the mint. >> that's right. all those t dr has been sold >> we'll move this off to public comment thank you very much. i have one speaker card. mr. edward
>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm edward. i'm one of the people referred not report. the friday morning i'd like to say the incredible amount of work those folks have put into this report. if you think about the faculties been almost thirty years and no one as kept track of where the t dr has come and gone the sheet is about 8 feet long. so my position is i'm in favor of the city selling the t dr particle on the larger assemblies they're very difficulty to put together. it would be nearly impossible to
put together 1 hundred square feet right so definitely anything over 75 thousand is square feet. the real key is how do they come to market and the pricing. really it's the pricing so our recommendation would be to go out with a fixed price that would generate as much in the way of funds for the city as you mentioned. part of it was for the developer to assemble the t dr but the big person is to raise money for the veterans believe through the t dr program. when i talked to the capital planning committee yesterday, i
recommended that price might want as $35 per square feet. currently it's 25 and that's impartial because the city is going to come out with the t dr at 25 square feet. and if you look at what the additional cost is if for example, the market is 10 there's per square feet today, if you increase that to $25 per square feet it would add to the development of $1.67 per square foot. but in the private sector it's very expensive. it mentioned the marys field and that's in excess of many
dollars. the height scale - >> if i might. if my fellow commissioners the gentleman is an expert in this and if we don't mind extending his time >> and 10 tractions and that's 8 transactions. part of the issue in cigarette price is if the city sets it at $25 per square foot the private sector is going to sell it at 20 because there's a lot less risk for timing and such. so if the market is $25 per
square foot the private sector is going to sell it $5 under current market. we could justify a price of 35 it raises another $25,000 for the veterans believe >> thank you any commissioners have any questions for the gentleman. any public comment on this item? >> yes. >> i am so excited about this document. i've been president this for more years than i can imagine. the funding committee tried to fund this in 2008 it was worth also. it was sited in this document but i think it's wonderful.
it answers almost all the questions one could have. i can't imagine how much time it took. bus even though the department and the gentlemen have worked very hard on this over the last 5 years there's a lot more that went into producing this report then we've been able to wrap our brains around. that doesn't mean i don't have a couple of of questions. one of the points that's missing in the report is that i believe that public t drs can only be used on buildings that are not rehabbed. so i think we have to talk that through. i continue to be considered about the port as the gentleman
pointed out we don't know whose measuring what from where. a lot of where the t drs might go is an issue are it may be that the policy point so to determine with the city's public t drs where they might best be used or not uses. i think the next step needs to be discussed but the policy information is there. thank you one and all >> any of the other public want to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have one comment in all of this year the private property t dr folks don't have any other revenue to care for the city we
have bonds and other means. i do appreciate the gentleman's idea of trying to use up the funds to care for those buildings or so the private sector can care for their own buildings. i consider a $30 number plus adding a transfer tax. that make sense to what the general public benefit as well as the buildings is concerned >> i did want to make clear i think that it's always a problem to fund fixing up a public building that is such as 1 across the street. we sat